I want to start off this article by pointing to the link on the right hand side of this site. Which is entitled, "what I mean by King James Only." For some more background information and how I came to my position. As well as what I mean by KJV-ONLY.
However, I will put a summary here now. I believe that the Authorized King James Bible is the most pure and best preserved English Bible without error (grammar fixes over different editions are not errors). That is God's Pure and Providentially Preserved Word FOR ENGLISH SPEAKING people's. Not the emphasis in English for English speaking people.
NON English people's should have an equivalent translation in their common and native language. I do not agree with some and I repeat some of the KJV defenders that say things about the KJV needing to be used worldwide no matter what the vulgar or common language is. Not all KJB believers teach this more extreme doctrine/conviction.
My King-James Only view does not and I repeat does not buy into nor support the idea of secondary inspiration during the translation of the AV/KJV. However, if by inspiration you mean all of the Word of God as inspired in the original languages are accurately translated into the AV/KJV than yes I definitely believe that. As any faithful translation from the preserved manuscripts in the Traditional Text or Majority Text line of manuscripts would be a preserved version and thus be a faithful copy of what was written down via the Holy Spirit and thus inspired in that sense.
I also am a firm believer that the many editions of the KJV are all equally God's Word and not just the 1611 edition. Which we no longer have available by the way for 1611 only people. The version of the KJV that we have is 1769 not 1611. I believe that God preserved using the many revisions of the AV/KJV. Equally I think moderate English updates such as the Simplified King James Version, King James Easy Reader, Modern King James Bible are all equally Pure and Preserved in more modern grammar. I would consider them Preserved Word in more modern English.
I still think that one should double check those versions against the underlying Textus Receptus or Traditional Text and the 1769 KJV if they find something is ever off about how something is switched to a different word. However, someone using one of these other versions is still using the Preserved Word and an edition of the AV/KJV to me as they are simply an update of the 1769, as the 1769 was a difference in edition from the 1611.
I am not a fan of several of the changes within the New King James as they to me went to far afield in some areas and I would still recommend the previous mentioned versions as a modern grammar update of the underlying scripture. However, I would much prefer someone use the New King James as opposed to the Modern Textual Criticism behind other Modern English Bibles. Such as the ESV, NASB, CSB and especially things such as the NIV or NLT translations.
If someone uses a modern critical edition it should at least be a literal translation. ESV and NASB are better than CSB for literalness, however, they still use what I consider to be the less reliable critical text base. At the end of the day it comes down to what you believe about the manuscript lineage and Textus Receptus, received text, or Majority Text. Or whether you put stalk in the minority of manuscripts some of which contain obvious places where things have been erased to push personal agendas.
I put stalk in the traditonal text which was not translated by heretics like Westcott and Horte whom openly denied the virgin birth and denied that God preserved His Word at all. Doubting that the Bible was infallibile and inherent. They also engaged in Occult practices like talking to Ghosts (demons) and a number of other things in their own autobiographical information. I put stalk in what matches what New Testament Churches used which is the Textus Receptus/Traditional text/Majority line.
That is most accurately and thus best preserved for the English Speaking people's in the now 1769 Authorized King James Bible. It is also preserved more accurately in the English Bibles that led up to the King James Bible. The King James is the best updating and translating of the traditional text in English. Moderate grammar updates in more modern English that do not remove or add new content simply change some words to modern grammar are the Perfectly Preserved Word for English-speaking people's in more modern Grammar.
I do wish that Christians as a whole used either the King James Bible 1769 or the modern grammar update equivalents as their standard sacred text in English for all teaching in New Testament Assemblies and their personal studies. However, I do not judge those whom are not doing so. Nor do I somehow think it makes them less than saved or less than Christian. I do find most have not done their homework though. I do think they need to look into the evidence for both positions before judging the KJV Only Brothers and Sisters though for being King James Only.
I think they are wrong, but the King James Issue is not something to judge others over. Nor is it something that I think is worth separating over as long as your fellow assembly attendees and fellows in fellowship accept this difference of opinion with Grace and love and acceptance as being just as worthy of being a part of fellowship as those that use a modern critical Bible.
I also would urge King James Only Christians to not treat modern critical text Christians in their assemblies as a plague either. This is not something worth separating over as long as you are accepted in your assembly as a KJB Believer (if people literally judge you for being KJB Christians that might be the only option). As long as you are not pushed out over the Bible Version issue and treated as equals.
So in a long winded, but well explained answer. Am I King James Only? The answer is definitely, unabashedly, unashamedly, a thousand times YES! Do I agree with everyone whom has ever defended the KJB and all of their tactics? Absolutely NO! Do I agree with the hostility felt from some Christians on either side of the topic? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
I like to think of myself as a more gracious and measured King James Only proponent. However, I still do defend the KJB. I will continue to defend it as long as all my research and prayer supports my stance. If someone were to diss the KJB I will openly state I disagree strongly, however, I do not do it by judging or calling people names. I do it by pointing them graciously to the evidence I have seen and prayed over.
So, once again to the statement. YOU ARE NOT KING JAMES ONLY ARE YOU? THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING YES! HERE IS WHY! Not yes, but if you are not you are a heretic. Or engaged in Apostasy. My answer is yes and graciously here is why and why I think you should be to. I will never judge someone over the KJB question. Nor do I think being a KJB Believer is a requirement for being a Fundamental Bible believing Christian assembly.
